http://911myths.com/index.php?title=Tom_Sullivan&feed=atom&action=historyTom Sullivan - Revision history2024-03-29T13:14:11ZRevision history for this page on the wikiMediaWiki 1.22.7http://911myths.com/index.php?title=Tom_Sullivan&diff=9407&oldid=prevMike at 21:05, 3 March 20112011-03-03T21:05:48Z<p></p>
<p><b>New page</b></p><div>One of the often cited criticisms of 9/11 conspiracies is their lack of falsifiability. One will regularly encounter excuses why evidence isn’t readily available to substantiate a claim; eg- it’s a cover up, they destroyed it, etc. Such is the case of the “self-consuming thermite cutter charge”.<br />
<br />
In this case we have an alleged demolitions device which also destroys itself leaving nothing but a pool of molten iron. Hence, why there is no evidence of demolition devices at Ground Zero; quite convenient. The idea of thermite cutter charges was awash across 9/11 conspiracy sites, but had its greatest peak with a specific article at Architects&Engineers for 9/11 Truth. Luckily, the authors found just the man to confirm what they were looking for in Tom Sullivan, former CDI, Inc. employee and alleged controlled demolitions expert.<br />
<br />
{{divbox|amber||“Having had the privilege of speaking with Tom Sullivan, an actual '''explosive-charge placement technician''', we have some new insights to pass along as to how controlled demolition works…”(emphasis mine)<br><br />
http://cms.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/315-explosive-evidence-at-wtc-cited-by-former-cdi-employee.html}}<br />
Sounds impressive, right? <br />
<br />
A small problem is that the job title “explosive-charge placement technician” exists nowhere except on AE9111Truth.org & other sites parroting their words. The evidence they present is Sullivan’s [http://www.ae911truth.net/images/infoitems/Sullivan_CDI_card-id.JPG “powder carrier” license] & Sullivan refers to himself as a “loader” in the article & in his [http://www2.ae911truth.org/profile.php?uid=981611 AE911Truth profile]; while after the publishing of the online article referring to himself as an [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OcwnJTpholc&feature=player_embedded# “explosives technician”].<br />
<br />
In fact, the City of New York outlines the responsibilities of those who work with explosives in building demolitions. According to those standards a powder carrier & explosive loader are nothing close to experts.<br />
<br />
{{divbox|amber||“The Powder Carrier is essentially an apprentice Blaster, assisting the Blaster with loading:…paperwork, such as recording quantities of explosives used and shot times.<br />
Explosives loaders help the Blaster and Powder Carrie in transporting explosives to and from the magazines and handling explosives during loading operations.” (emphasis mine)<br>http://www.nyc.gov/html/fdny/pdf/cof_study_material/e_14_study_material.pdf}}<br />
So based on the evidence AE911Truth presents (the printed statements of Sullivan, & his ID) he was nothing more than an assistant; nothing close to an expert. But what does Tom Sullivan, the assistant, say about thermite based technologies in controlled demolitions?<br />
<br />
{{divbox|amber||“[I]n the case of Thermite cutter charges, that may also be the case [referring to being used in the World Trade Center]. '''Thermite self-consuming cutter charge casings have been around since first patented back in 1984'''.” (emphasis mine)[http://cms.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/315-explosive-evidence-at-wtc-cited-by-former-cdi-employee.html (Source)]}}<br />
AE911Truth doesn’t want to seem like we are just taking the word of Tom Sullivan. They provide us with a patent specifically from 1984. They even go further by placing a caption: “This particular cutter charge designed for use with thermite” [http://www.ae911truth.net/images/infoitems/Sullivan_slide3.jpg (Source)].<br />
<br />
The issue here is it’s not a cutter charge. If one were to follow the patent number, it’s used as an ignition source.<br />
<br />
{{divbox|amber||“This invention relates to a new low-energy integral thermite igniter/heat source, e.g., for use in igniting larger charges, e.g., propellant charges.” <br />
[http://www.freepatentsonline.com/4464989.html (Source)]}}<br />
It didn’t take AE911Truth long to recognize this problem, so they quickly attempted to clarify their mistakes (though not noting it in their original article - this can only be found by digging through their news archive).<br />
<br />
{{divbox|amber||“We incorrectly identified the thermite device illustrated in this article as a ‘cutter charge’... Our intention was to note that the technology for self consuming consolidated thermite cases existed as far back as 1984” [http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/317-correction-and-clarification-article-explosive-evidence-at-wtc-cited-by-former-cdi-employee.html (Source)]}}<br />
They intended to show these cutter charges existed in 1984. That’s what Tom Sullivan stated. They do the next best thing though, and provide another patent of a thermite cutter charge (note: it’s only a cutter charge and not self consuming) from 1999. What happened to Sullivan’s 1984 self consuming thermite cutter charge? They never tell us. All they leave us with is:<br />
<br />
{{divbox|amber||“[I]t is quite conceivable, given the 16 year span of time between 1984 and 2001, that these two technologies could have been combined to produce a thermite based cutter charge whose casing is also made of consolidated thermite. This must still be researched.” [http://www.ae911truth.org/news/41-articles/317-correction-and-clarification-article-explosive-evidence-at-wtc-cited-by-former-cdi-employee.html (Source)]}}<br />
So after all the “expert” testimony and two patents the only evidence that is left for a self-consuming cutter charge is, well it might exist but we need to find out more; aside from the fact that their expert claims a patent, publicly available if it did exist, has been around for over 25 years. Also of note, they backpeddled on using remote detonators. Who could guess that we “need a new investigation” to find out? What AE911Truth wants a new investigation for is to find out if their speculation based on non-authorities and shoddy research is valid.</div>Mike